[Pie]

Okay, I’m back from Te-has. Everything is bigger in Texas; even the cockroaches. :shudder:

Originally Posted by BigV

While that sounds reasonable, you know in your heart that it is not practical when carried too far. Realistically speaking, the larger an organization is, the more likely there will be a disconnect between the actions of an individual and the actions of the organization.

One needs to look at the purpose and scope of an organization. If I belong to the American Automobile Association, I don’t expect them to have a view on Social Security, or gay rights. If belong to AARP, they might legitimately have an organization-wide view on the former, but not the latter. If I were, say, a retired person, and had a view that was divergent from my parent organization, I would have to sit down and assess the level of divergence, and the importance of that divergence. If my views were only slightly askew, or I didn’t think they were that important (to me or to society), I might let it slide.
Otherwise, I have two options, as I enumerate previously. Publicly voice your disapproval, or leave the organization.

I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. But as soon as the organization expands from one to two and beyond, my responsibility for the actions of other individuals in the organization diminishes somewhat.

Of course individuals are responsible for their own actions! That’s why they are responsible for ALL their choices, including their choices of association. I can’t hang out with racists, not criticize their views, and then say, “Hey, it’s cool – I’m not a racist myself!” I’m not saying one is responsible for all the views of everyone in the organization – that would be impossible. But you are responsible for auditing the group-wide charter, platform or dogma. (Yes, this does apply to religions, too.)

If I fundamentally disagree with the tenets of an organization, then how can I really belong? Does my possession of a membership card indicate belonging? What about my name on a roster? What if the organization changes or I change, am I still part the organization?

That’s the heart of my argument! If you “fundamentally disagree,” you can’t belong. If their views change, I need to re-evaluate. If my views change, I also need to re-evaluate.

Because an idea may be true or beautiful, but by itself, it is inert. Statements reveal more about ideas, but statements can be lies. Actions are the least ambiguous of the three and therefore the firmest foundation upon which to base my decisions.

True. Actions are all that count. Stripping an Eagle Scout of his rank and association for being an atheist, or gay? That’s a pretty lousy action. Saying you’ll do it again, and it’s the “right thing to do”? That’s an egregious statement. Believing that homosexuality is incompatible with being a “moral” person? Repulsive idea. Just like that gang of racists, I can’t hang out with these folks.

I have another question. Do you imply that one may either exit an organization *OR* voice dissent? What if I wish to change an organization? Must I leave? What if the changes I seek are best pursued from within the organization? What if it's an organization from which I cannot easily leave? My family? My gender? My history?

It was phrased as an OR choice in the text to which I was referring. Doing your damnedest to change an organization from the interior is a most respectable way of dealing with such a dichotomy. That’s how I deal with being a citizen of the United States of America. I’ll voice my opposition to what’s currently going on as loudly and as often as I can. My other choice is to exit; I’ll do that only when I’ve exhausted all venues to affect change from my current position.
Of your three examples, I would class two as red herrings – gender and history are facts, not mutable opinions. The first is legitimate. Yes, if my brother is a fascist, and I can’t argue him out of it, I would have to think about whether or not to continue the relationship. (I am currently in a somewhat similar position, though not with my brother.)
(Or perhaps you can't leave the relationship. You can certainly cross them of the list of people you like and admire!)

It is by association with others that makes an organization. And what I think and say and do today reflects on all the organizations of which I am a member. But I am responsible for those thoughts, words and actions, not my fellow members.

But organizations do engage in actions. The various political parties engage in actions. The NRA, NAACP, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Catholic Church, the AAA – all engage in societal and legal actions as part of their charter. I’m not asking for an investigation of everyone who has ever been a member – I’m asking for an investigation of the organization itself. Do they represent your beliefs? Do they go against your beliefs?

Pie, by "Loyalty", do you mean placing greater emphasis on status quo than on principles? What if I agree with most of what an organization stands for, but not a small part? What if I am neutral about some ideas?

Then voice your opinion about the points you disagree on! Tell them you are a long-standing member that loves the Society for the Preservation of Domestic Aardvarks, but you don’t like their treatment of Spiny Echidnae as third-class citizens. Make your mark! Write to your Senator. Show up for the rally.
I was trying to illustrate the difference between blind loyalty and true loyalty. The former says "My group, right or wrong!" The latter says "We've got some issues here, folks. Doesn't anyone else see this?" Love it enough to want to change it for the better.

Mutliple the detailed decision making process outlined above by the manifold instances for which it would occur in a large organization, like The Boy Scouts of America, in just one day. Or over a career. It is necessary, not complacent, to remain engaged, critical, and open to ensure that the arc of an organization matches the trajectory of one's ethos. It is my individual responsibility to associate with and respresent the many organizations I am a part of. As long as I am paying attention, I'll do that well, and there'll be a fair match. But I believe perfect fidelity is as unimportant as it is impossible. I'd rather we all be paying attention in the present, and see what happens.

I think we really are on the same page, BigV. My only comment is that I have certain lines I don’t cross. Bigotry in any form is one of those lines. As far as the BSA goes, it's not the bigotry of a few radical members. It's enshrined in their nationwide charter. Unfortunately, that smirch sullies the vast, mostly guiltless majority.

If I had a friend that had crossed that line, I would first try to change their viewpoint, but if they held firm to their position, I would terminate the friendship. I treat organizations the same way. I expect my friends I respect to treat me the same way. If I’m bone-headed about something, argue with me about it, for Pete’s sake!

- Pie